Monday, April 30, 2012

Young was suspended for seven days without pay by Major League Baseball on Monday, nearly four days after his arrest in Manhattan early Friday morning on a second-degree aggravated harassment charge. Young, who is on the restricted list and will be entered into a treatment program after being evaluated by a doctor, will be eligible to play again Friday, baseball officials said. The punishment is retroactive to last Friday, and Young will not appeal, according a person briefed on the matter who was not authorized to speak publicly

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I read in some other article on the situation that they'd have the right to void the contract. Can't see them doing that though, if they didn't realize how damn stupid it was to pay him almost $7 million and put him in the outfield every day in the offseason then there's little reason to think that a month of him playing only somewhat worse than expected will have changed their minds.

What about a month of him playing somewhat worse than expected in addition to making an ass of himself? I think it's a possibility, but you're right that it's not as likely as it ought to be since they think he is in fact worth that kind of salary for some stupid reason.

I read in some other article on the situation that they'd have the right to void the contract.

Whoever wrote that is almost certainly wrong. The relevant case is the Padres attempts to break LaMarr Hoyt's contract. You might be able to find the arbitrator's comments on the case online, since Nicolau did write an article on discipline in sport.

What is clear from what I have handy is that it can't be selective. If you can convince an arbitrator that you'd want to void (say) Prince Fielder's contract for a similar action you'd have a chance. But I'm doubtful you could convince an arbitrator.

Found some quotes from Nicolau. The most important being, "Significant disparity of treatment also creates uncertainity in the administration . . . at a time when the need is for an integrated, consistent and rational system." and "San Diego did not carefully weight all the facts as just cause requires. It simply decided, irrespective of the circumstances, that its unwritten policy, as interpreted by (Ex-Padre President Ballard) Smith, would prevail."

I don't know if the 30-year-old Lamarr Hoyt case is going to be of much value as a precedent. But just last year, the Tigers had a player arrested for a significantly more dangerous crime than this, and he didn't get suspended for even a single day despite being a repeat offender. That would make it awfully hard for them to justify voiding Young's contract.

Why would you void his contract though? They're extremely thin in the outfield, playing guys like Brennan Bosch and Don Kelly. Young at least has power potential. Its not like he's signed to some albatross contract, they can just non-tender him this winter and upgrade the OF then.

I guess if they have a chance to get someone like Johnny Damon if he opts out it may make some sense to use the money saved from Delmon to get him. Or if a trade pops up from a team looking to dump a guy for money reasons. But they're trying to win a championship and right now Delmon Young is one of the 25 best players on their team, and I don't think Mike Ilitch cares about wasting money that much.

Why would you void his contract though? They're extremely thin in the outfield, playing guys like Brennan Bosch and Don Kelly. Young at least has power potential. Its not like he's signed to some albatross contract, they can just non-tender him this winter and upgrade the OF then.

I guess if they have a chance to get someone like Johnny Damon if he opts out it may make some sense to use the money saved from Delmon to get him. Or if a trade pops up from a team looking to dump a guy for money reasons. But they're trying to win a championship and right now Delmon Young is one of the 25 best players on their team, and I don't think Mike Ilitch cares about wasting money that much.

Last season Delmon Young was worth 0.4 WAR. His only "good" year in 2010 was worth all of 1.8 WAR. In the 2 years prior to that his WAR was -0.6 and -0.9.

It's not clear that he's a better player than Don Kelly or Clete Thomas or whatever other filler they've got lying around. And they're paying him nearly $7M for this "production".

Shouldn't the notion of "hate crime" be considered a violation of free speech?

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the concept of a "hate crime" is based on the motive of the defendant, not the speech itself. The speech can be used as evidence of the motive, but it is not the speech that is being prosecuted.

It's not clear that he's a better player than Don Kelly or Clete Thomas or whatever other filler they've got lying around. And they're paying him nearly $7M for this "production".

Clete Thomas is a Twin.

I kinda agree, but I'm just saying they're thin on talent, Young still has potential to help you win, I don't think they care that much about the money or they wouldn't have tendered him last winter in the first place. Its not like he's a huge clubhouse cancer (is he?). Unless this incident makes it more trouble than its worth with people picketing Comerica or something, I don't see why they'd let him go.

The speech can be used as evidence of the motive, but it is not the speech that is being prosecuted.

If that's the case, then I'd love to know if "hate crimes" receive harsher penalties than similar crimes committed that do not have "hate crime" associated with them. If "hate crimes" get more jail time than the comparable "regular" crime, then you're penalizing differently based on speech.

If that's the case, then I'd love to know if "hate crimes" receive harsher penalties than similar crimes committed that do not have "hate crime" associated with them. If "hate crimes" get more jail time than the comparable "regular" crime, then you're penalizing differently based on speech.

You're penalizing differently based on motive. I can see why one would object to that -- "hate thought" (or "biased thought") is not a crime, so should crimes that are based in hate/bias be punished differently than ordinary crimes? But I don't think it's a problem from a freedom of speech perspective. Your words can be used as evidence against you, and this should not be surprising.

Delmon Young curses out Jews, 7 day suspension. John Rocker disparages queers & foreigners, 28 day suspension + ST. You do the math.

Delmon Young burst out in a spontaneous diatribe that lasted a minute or two. John Rocker gave an interview where he went into a lot more details about the bee in his bonnet, with full opportunity to think before spewing. You can agree or disagree about the two punishments, but these aren't identical cases, any more than your use of a disparaging term for gays on an internet forum is the same thing as what Young or Rocker did.

Imagine if a white ball player was arrested for assault after yelling ####### NIGGERS in public.

He'd have about the same bright future in baseball as Delmon Young has right now.

Well failed is the wrong word I think. The Rockies released Neagle. There was a grievance filed, and (as is typical of Das) the arbitrator encouraged the sides to negotiate. They reached a settlement for an amount that to my knowledge has never been confirmed but is generally believed to be about 90% of what Neagle was owed. This is what happened with the Orioles and Alan Wiggins (whose contract had language about future drug problems)

What this tells me is that (as God implies in #5) nobody's absolutely certain how things would play out, but the prevailing belief seems to be that if push comes to shove the arbitrator would side with the player.

You're penalizing differently based on motive. I can see why one would object to that -- "hate thought" (or "biased thought") is not a crime, so should crimes that are based in hate/bias be punished differently than ordinary crimes? But I don't think it's a problem from a freedom of speech perspective. Your words can be used as evidence against you, and this should not be surprising.

All of this seems right to me. I guess we do give stiffer sentences based on motive, e.g. "I ran over him because I was trying to get home and didn't pay attention", vs. "I ran over him because he was ugly".

Would we give a stiffer sentence to the "I hate Jews" offender, or to the "I hate ugly people" offender?

When comparing Rocker and Young, let's not lose sight of the fact that Young was so drunk that he was transported to the ER. That being said, I cannot imagine Young ever playing for a New York team for the rest of his career (however long that will be).

but these aren't identical cases, any more than your use of a disparaging term for gays on an internet forum is the same thing as what Young or Rocker did

.

I was using the words Rocker himself used.

When comparing Rocker and Young, let's not lose sight of the fact that Young was so drunk that he was transported to the ER.

First of all, I haven't seen that detail anywhere, so please share the source. Secondly, is that supposed to exonerate him in some way? If he was playing baseball completely shitfaced and threw his bat at the umpire, would it have lessened his suspension, or increased it?

Delmon Young curses out Jews, 7 day suspension. John Rocker disparages queers & foreigners, 28 day suspension + ST. You do the math.

Delmon Young burst out in a spontaneous diatribe that lasted a minute or two. John Rocker gave an interview where he went into a lot more details about the bee in his bonnet, with full opportunity to think before spewing. You can agree or disagree about the two punishments, but these aren't identical cases, any more than your use of a disparaging term for gays on an internet forum is the same thing as what Young or Rocker did..

I was using the words Rocker himself used.

Then you should have put quotation marks around the offending word ("queer"), because otherwise there's no way to know whether or not you shared his sentiment. This is especially the case when you appear to be portraying Rocker as being a victim of some sort of a double standard.

What's the difference if I share his sentiment or not? And I was actually looking at it the other way, so I guess I failed in conveying my message. I think it's ridiculous that Rocker got a month and Oviedo gets 8 weeks, but Delmon Young, who has been suspended before for not having a handle on his emotions, gets only 7 days.

All of this seems right to me. I guess we do give stiffer sentences based on motive, e.g. "I ran over him because I was trying to get home and didn't pay attention", vs. "I ran over him because he was ugly".

Would we give a stiffer sentence to the "I hate Jews" offender, or to the "I hate ugly people" offender?

I would think the sentence for the same crime should be the same regardless of motive. If I contract a hit on someone because I hate them, and the hit-man does it for money, we both get 1st degree murder, even though our motives are very different.

The logic behind hate crime / bias crime laws, as I understand it, doesn't have to do with whether it's worse, morally, to hit someone because you're a jerk or to hit someone because you're a bigoted jerk.

The issue that these laws mean to address is the cascading social effects of hate crimes. If racial or sexual minorities are particularly targeted for violence, even low-level violence, this limits their ability to participate fully in society. The little bit of oomph that hate crime / bias crime laws add to existing laws about violence serves to help prevent that extra social evil that such crimes can have.

I worry about these laws because I don't like putting extra weapons in the hands of prosecutors, given the massive injustices within our criminal justice system. But I understand what advocates of these laws seek to achieve.

#30 The arbitrator's report on the Hoyt case runs 46 pages. A lot of it is taken up with the inept handling by the Padres prior to the events that led to Hoyt's arrest. Basically Nicolau held the Padres to a high standard in terms of dealing with Hoyt's existing problems.

No idea how this impacts the current situation, but it's far from implausible that Young hasn't got the most effective treatment possible for his known issues. And in the Hoyt case it's pretty clear that this bothered Nicolau a great deal.

The issue that these laws mean to address is the cascading social effects of hate crimes. If racial or sexual minorities are particularly targeted for violence, even low-level violence, this limits their ability to participate fully in society. The little bit of oomph that hate crime / bias crime laws add to existing laws about violence serves to help prevent that extra social evil that such crimes can have.

Agreed, but, if that were the case, isn't the right answer increased enforcement of the laws that exist, rather than disparate penalties? i.e., if there's a spate of assaults on gay men in a neighborhood, increase police patrols, and dedicate extra resources to solving and prosecuting those crimes. It's basically just good policing; put your resources where the crimes are prevalent.

You can have the same deterrent effect by ioncreasing the likelihood of punishment, w/o the potential mixed message that some victims have special status under the law.

There is also a very big issue of double jeopardy where people face regular criminal charges, are acquitted, and then face Federal Civil Rights charges for hate crimes.

Agreed, but, if that were the case, isn't the right answer increased enforcement of the laws that exist, rather than disparate penalties? i.e., if there's a spate of assaults on gay men in a neighborhood, increase police patrols, and dedicate extra resources to solving and prosecuting those crimes. It's basically just good policing; put your resources where the crimes are prevalent.

This is certainly true in the ideal case, but the police aren't always part of the solution on the ground. The drive to put in place hate crime / bias crime laws often arises when cops fail to do their jobs and even turn a blind eye to attacks on sexual and racial minorities.

Again, I'm pretty agnostic on these laws, probably leaning against, because I think that prosecutors have too many weapons in their utility belts as it is. But the simple solution you propose often isn't a solution at all.

This is certainly true in the ideal case, but the police aren't always part of the solution on the ground. The drive to put in place hate crime / bias crime laws often arises when cops fail to do their jobs and even turn a blind eye to attacks on sexual and racial minorities.

Again, I'm pretty agnostic on these laws, probably leaning against, because I think that prosecutors have too many weapons in their utility belts as it is. But the simple solution you propose often isn't a solution at all.

Well, if the police refuse to investigate, and/or the DAs refuse to prosecute, the higher penalties won't do much good since nobody's getting convicted.